Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjem20

Download by: [Victoria University of Wellington] Date: 27 May 2017, At: 22:07

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

ISSN: 1448-6563 (Print) 2159-5356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjem20

Towards zero carbon? Constrained policy action intwo New Zealand cities

Ralph Chapman, Philippa Howden-Chapman, Kate Whitwell & AlyssaThomas

To cite this article: Ralph Chapman, Philippa Howden-Chapman, Kate Whitwell & Alyssa Thomas(2017) Towards zero carbon? Constrained policy action in two New Zealand cities, AustralasianJournal of Environmental Management, 24:2, 97-116, DOI: 10.1080/14486563.2017.1309696

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2017.1309696

Published online: 05 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Towards zero carbon? Constrained policy action in twoNew Zealand citiesRalph Chapmana, Philippa Howden-Chapmanb, Kate Whitwella and Alyssa Thomasa

aEnvironmental Studies Programme, NZ Centre for Sustainable Cities, School of Geography, Environment andEarth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; bNZ Centre for Sustainable Cities,University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

ABSTRACTTransportation was Aotearoa/New Zealand’s fastest-growing sectorin terms of carbon emissions over the last two decades. This articleinvestigates mitigation policies for transportation emissions in thetwo most prosperous cities, Wellington and Auckland. Analysinglocal government policy documents, we dissect commitments andexamine the gap between aspirations and outcomes. Neithercity’s emissions are falling significantly despite trends towardshousing intensification, which can cut emissions via shorterjourneys. The mode share of motor vehicles in total commutingtrips is only gradually diminishing, while the share of walking andcycling is only marginally increasing. We explore possibleexplanations for the slow progress in achieving aspirations. Ourmain findings are: first, there is a significant ambition gapbetween councils’ stated goals, on the one hand, and measuresadopted by councils, on the other; and second, ‘business as usual’policies of central government are dampening these cities’ willand ability to adopt more sustainable policies. We conclude thatcity mitigation performance will likely be modest until the centralgovernment’s stance changes, but there is nevertheless a strongcase, and clear opportunities, for Auckland and Wellington tostrengthen their emission reductions.

KEYWORDSClimate policy; mitigation;multi-level governance;transport; land use; emissions

Introduction

This article explores the climate goals and policies of two key Aoteaora-New Zealand cityregions, and the apparent gap between the need for mitigation recognised by councils inaspirational statements, and council performance. Our premise is that aspirations havelittle meaning unless robust policy plans are also provided. We illustrate the gap,linking it back to a similar gap at central government level. We focus on transportationemissions.

It is increasingly clear that only a decisive mitigation effort across multiple policy frontsand jurisdictions will keep global warming safely below the 2°C threshold (Geden 2015;Stern 2015; US Council of Economic Advisers 2014) and cities have a critical role toplay (The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate 2014). Renewed attentionis focusing on the relative roles of local and national governments, and the extent to

© 2017 Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand Inc.

CONTACT Ralph Chapman ralph.chapman@vuw.ac.nz

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2017VOL. 24, NO. 2, 97–116http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2017.1309696

which these governance levels conflict or complement each other (Betsill & Bulkeley 2006;Bulkeley & Betsill 2005; Harker et al. 2016; Kousky & Schneider 2003). The IPCC notes a‘profusion of [mitigation] activity at sub-national levels, particularly at city level, much ofwhich is only loosely coordinated with national actions’ (Somanathan et al. 2014, p. 1155).There is a range of views on cities’ roles, from upbeat (C40 Cities 2014), to those under-lining tensions between local and national goals (Brown et al. 2008; Bulkeley 2010), orequivocal (Bailey et al. 2012; Bulkeley & Kern 2006).

A neoclassical economic view (Sancton 2006) is that it is inefficient for local govern-ment to act given that benefits accrue beyond the local area, so they should be ‘policytakers’, not ‘policy-makers’. Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom advocated a ‘polycentric’or multi-level approach with a range of policy experiments to help overcome the freerider problem dogging mitigation action (Ostrom 2009). Other researchers have notedan ‘action gap’ at the national level as the basis for local government action (Engel2009; Gore 2010; Kern & Alber 2008). The local level may be an appropriate level forsome mitigation policies, as cities normally have high energy consumption and waste pro-duction, as well as considerable influence over key areas such as transport (Betsill & Bulke-ley 2006; Puppim de Oliveira 2009). Although cities can have influence and may even behighly motivated, factors such as a lack of coordination and/or capacity (Aylett 2014;Puppim de Oliveira 2009) may constrain them. At the least, it makes sense to exploitopportunities from better vertical and horizontal policy integration, (Corfee-Morlotet al. 2009; Newman et al. 2009) and identify concrete areas where cities can effectchange (Committee on Climate Change 2012; Kern & Alber 2008). In doing so, cityactions should consider (co-)benefits at the local level (Sancton 2006), such as economicor quality-of-life improvements (Chapman et al. 2016; Gore 2010).

Like many cities around the world, Wellington, the capital, and Auckland, the largestcity of New Zealand, state commitments to reducing their carbon emissions, while alsofostering economic activity and maintaining quality of life. There is unresolved tensionbetween these objectives. The two councils differ in their approaches to environmentalgoals, but at present appear distinctly more environmentally active than the central gov-ernment, a neoliberal National-led coalition since 2008 (Chapman 2015; Prince 2015). Theeffect of central government policies on the mitigation approaches of these two cities isanalysed below.

Little has been written on such issues in the New Zealand context. Mees and Dodson(2006) highlighted the process by which Auckland’s orientation towards carbon-intensiveprivate transport became entrenched; Harris (2005) traced the origins of this orientationin post-WW2 ideology; Chapman (2008) noted the importance of pro-mitigation reformof government transport and urban policy; and Hickman et al. (2014) modelled alternativetransportation scenarios for Auckland. Birchall (2014) found that local government com-mitment to carbon mitigation via the Cities for Climate Protection program was influ-enced by a lack of central government support. Legal and other factors influencing localgovernment action have been identified (Harker et al. 2016), but we are not aware ofany comparative analyses of the commitments and performance of key cities in reducingtransportation emissions. This article addresses that gap, exploring the two cities’ mitiga-tion aspirations and policies, and the factors influencing their action, drawing principallyon official council documents available to the public, and on statistical reports and othercomparative research. The main questions we address are: are the two cities’ mitigation

98 R. CHAPMAN ET AL.

ambitions reflected in priorities and actions on the ground; is dissonance between localand central government acting to stymie urban mitigation policies; and are there keyareas where the two cities could strengthen mitigation?

The article is structured as follows. We first place the cities in a context of national andlocal geographies, public opinion on climate change, and national climate policy. Sec-ondly, we examine the councils’ performance, starting with statistical data. We thendraw on the extensive resource of official documents produced by councils on strategyand policy, to analyse ‘ambition’, priorities and measures, concluding with opportunitiesfor more effective mitigation in the two cities.

National and city contexts

New Zealand is a highly (86 per cent) urbanised country of 4.5 million people and lowpopulation density (17 people per km2) (The World Bank 2015). It has relatively highenvironmental quality and policy performance (The Economist Intelligence Unit 2013;Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy 2014), strong conservation practices andenvironmental statutes, and a clean, green reputation. However, there has also been agradual erosion of commitment to environmental goals (OECD 2007; Yale Center forEnvironmental Law & Policy 2014). Doubts have also been growing about the extent towhich the environment remains clean and green (Hughey et al. 2013), key industries’environmental impacts (Foote et al. 2015), and the quality and transparency of environ-mental management (Chapman et al. 2013; Pure Advantage 2012). Greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions have risen since 2009 (Figure 1). Central government’s targets arenow a 5 per cent (unconditional) emissions cut by 2020, and 50 per cent by 2050,1 butmeasures to advance these goals are nominal. New Zealand’s Nationally Determined Con-tribution in terms of the 2015 Paris agreement is an 11 per cent cut in emissions against1990 levels by 2030 (MfE 2015).

Figure 1. New Zealand’s trajectory of total (gross) emissions, 1990–2012 (‘total emissions’ excludescarbon removals from land use, land use change, and forestry). Source: MfE (2014b): Figure ES 2.1.1.

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 99

While New Zealanders see climate change as the key international environmental issue,fewer than 10 per cent see it as the most important environmental issue (Hughey et al.2013). Nevertheless, many are concerned or very concerned about its societal effects(63 per cent) or personal effects (58 per cent) (Leining & White 2015, p. 5). Thecommons dilemma perception is affecting people’s views on mitigation – that is, theyare more willing to take action if they know others are doing so or will do (Aitkenet al. 2011; Milfont 2012). Support for government-level mitigation action is influencedby multiple factors, including whether policies involve financial support (Leining &White 2015; Milfont et al. 2014). The Government’s recent climate change policies havebeen notable in giving priority to economic goals (Macey 2014), downplaying thestrong longer term connection between prosperity and the environment (Boven et al.2012; Oram 2014; Wilson et al. 2011). Internationally, the OECD remarked in its 2015Economic Survey of New Zealand that the GHG intensity of output is the secondhighest in the OECD after Estonia (OECD 2015). New Zealand’s targets have been com-pared unfavourably with Australia’s (Wannan 2015), called ‘inadequate’ and the countryaccused of not doing its ‘fair share’ (Climate Action Tracker 2015a).

Wellington and Auckland (Figure 2) together contribute 49 per cent of GDP and house45 per cent of the population (Statistics New Zealand 2014). In key economic respects,they are also distinct, with significantly higher levels of human capital, economic complex-ity and knowledge-intensity, and thus civic capacity (Eaqub 2014, p. 14). Some U.S. evi-dence suggests that cities with higher civic capacity are more likely to commit tomitigation actions (Zahran et al. 2008).

Wellington City’s population is about 200,000, set within the GreaterWellington regionof 500,000 people, in 8000 km2. Almost all the region’s population and economic activityare in the five cities in the region’s west. Wellington City itself has a moderate populationdensity (weighted) of 38 persons/hectare (Nunns 2014). Wellington’s economic growthaveraged 1.6 per cent/year, 2005–2015, compared with the country’s average of 1.9 percent; its strong human capital suggests that continuing growth is likely (Infometrics2015b). The region’s population growth (0.9 per cent/year, 2001–2013) is similar to thecountry’s as a whole (1.1 per cent/year); prospects are for ongoing population increase,to around 600,000 in 2043 in a high-growth scenario (Statistics New Zealand 2016).Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) has responsibility for regional transport

Figure 2. Location of Auckland and Wellington regions.

100 R. CHAPMAN ET AL.

management, while city and district councils have responsibility for land use planning(urban form), local roads, and active travel facilities.

Auckland City accommodates 1.4 million people in an area of 5000 km2. Populationdensity has increased 33 per cent since 2001 and at 43 people per hectare (weighted) isnow the third densest Australasian city (Nunns 2014). The City was created in 2010from the amalgamation of one regional council and seven city/district councils (Earlyet al. 2015). Auckland’s economy has grown 2.3 per cent/year, 2005–2015 (Infometrics2015a). Population growth, at 1.7 per cent per year, remains rapid; a high-growth scenarioprojects 2.4 million by 2043 (Statistics New Zealand 2016).

Performance

Transport patterns and emissionsNew Zealand’s carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion per capita (7.3 tonnes/year in2012) are below the OECD average (9.7 tonnes) (OECD 2015). However, road transpor-tation (generating 40 per cent of energy sector emissions in 2014) presents a major chal-lenge as the fastest-growing sector, with a 71 per cent increase in emissions over 1990–2014 (MfE 2016, p. 41).

The Wellington region’s emissions per capita2 are moderate by national standards: in2013, gross carbon emissions in the region were 5.3 tonnes per capita, down from 5.9tonnes per capita in 2001 (URS 2014) (Figure 3). The region’s largest contributor to emis-sions was ‘mobile sources’ (36 per cent), followed by ‘stationary energy’ (21 per cent).Mobile sources were largely petrol- and diesel-powered transportation. Transportationcarbon emissions by 2013 were marginally higher than their 1999 level; on the otherhand, per capita emissions declined (by over 10 per cent) since their 2005 peak (GWRC2016, p. 30).

Wellington region’s commuting patterns are not particularly car-intensive. In 2013, 66per cent of trips to work were by motor vehicle, down from 70 per cent in 2001; 33 per centof commute trips were by public or active transport (up from 29 per cent in 2001) (Stat-istics New Zealand 2015a). If all trips are considered, and the focus is on Wellington Cityover the 2010–13 period, walking constituted 27 per cent of all trips (Shaw et al. 2016). Theregion has several environmental and economic features facilitating active travel. Theseinclude the core city’s relatively compact form (McKim 2014) and two important travelcorridors converging on the CBD, concentrating regional activity. Most of the public

Figure 3. Gross greenhouse gas emissions per capita for Wellington (URS 2014).

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 101

transport ‘spine’ is served by electric suburban rail or trolley buses. The region’s activetravel share of commuting trips is, at 15 per cent, significantly above both the nation’saverage 10 per cent, and Auckland’s six per cent (Table 1). Wellington region’s activetravel share of all trips, at 24 per cent, is also significantly greater than Auckland’s (17per cent) (Statistics New Zealand 2014).

However, Wellington trends are not entirely reassuring. The occupancy of vehiclesentering the Wellington CBD has been steady in recent years at around 1.38 persons(GWRC 2014), and public transport’s share of peak hour trips has recently dropped mar-ginally (GWRC 2015a, p. 12). Transport-generated carbon emissions increased in the lasttwo years, by two per cent (GWRC 2015a, p. 33).

Auckland’s growth in higher density housing may have outpaced Wellington’s over thepast decade. Census figures show rates of growth in ‘joined’ occupied private dwellings(e.g. apartments; non-stand-alone townhouses) between 2001 and 2013 as highest inAuckland (33 per cent growth vs. Wellington’s 27 per cent). By contrast, the rest of thecountry saw only three per cent growth (Statistics New Zealand 2015b).

Auckland’s emissions profile is influenced by its high dependence on car transport(Auckland Council 2012). Auckland Council’s Low Carbon strategy noted that transpor-tation plus electricity accounts for about two-thirds of its emissions (Auckland Council2014, p. 4). Excluding land use change and forestry, Auckland’s (gross) carbon emissionsincreased 17 per cent between 1990 and 2009. One recent estimate of per capita emissionsis 6.7 tonnes in 2009, unchanged from 1990 (ARUP 2012) (Figure 4), although AucklandCouncil itself estimates recent levels to be around seven tonnes per capita (AucklandCouncil 2014, p. 14)

While motor vehicles3 remain dominant in Auckland’s commuting mode distribution(Table 1), a higher share than Wellington’s, their share in commuting fell slightly over thelast decade, from 86 per cent (2001) to 84 per cent (2013) (Statistics New Zealand 2015a).Auckland’s public transport mode share is much lower, at eight per cent, than Welling-ton’s. Accordingly, a major Council goal is to double public transport trips from 70 to140 million (2012 to 2022) (Auckland Council 2012) and, although there was a smalldecline in 2013, trip numbers were up 20 per cent over April 2011–April 2015 (AucklandTransport 2015). However, active transport encouragement has lagged, despite recentcycleway construction; and cycling mode share is not on track to its five per cent 2020goal (latest figures, for 2013, were 1.1 per cent) (Auckland Council 2015, p. 5). In short,the Auckland picture suggests gradual change from a ‘low’ base, but in the right direction.The level of monitoring is encouraging, but there is a long way to go in transformingAuckland Transport.

Table 1.Main means of travel to work, from NZ Census 2013 for Wellington and Auckland Regions; andall-trip mode shares (share of trip legs), from NZ Household Travel Survey data, 2010–2013.

Car/motorcycles

Walking/cycling

Public transport(Bus/Train)

Other (inclferry) Total

Wellington: share of work commute trips(main mode) (%)

66 15 17 1 100

Auckland: share of work commute trips(main mode) (%)

84 6 8 2 100

Wellington: share of all trips (%) 71 24 4 1 100Auckland: share of all trips (%) 78 17 4 1 100

102 R. CHAPMAN ET AL.

Method: analysing policy ambition

To better understand the councils’ ambitions, priorities and measures, we undertookqualitative interpretative document analysis, a method frequently used in policy andurban studies (Gurran & Phibbs 2013; Jacobs 2006; Murphy 2015). Such analysis canassist in understanding the context in which policies are implemented (Bowen 2009),policy conflicts (Murphy 2015) and policy nuances. To examine the commitment of Well-ington and Auckland to mitigation, we assessed the councils’ planning and policy docu-ments dating from 2010 to the end of 2015. We searched council websites fordocuments on climate mitigation and/or emissions reduction, including in relation totransportation and land use. Documents included strategic policy texts from councils,such as long-term plans, annual reports and specific strategies on climate change andtransportation. In line with Bowen (2009), we aimed to analyse a ‘wide array of documentsproviding a preponderance of evidence’ (p. 33). As well as strategic and policy documentevidence, we examined evidence (mainly statistical) on outcomes from various sourcesincluding the councils and Statistics New Zealand. Table 2 lists official documents ana-lysed. We did not code the documents, but analysed references to climate change, mitiga-tion, and emissions reduction. An element of interpretation and judgement was involvedin the ratings (Table 2) with discussion among authors, and independent ratings made bytwo authors. Each policy document’s rating was based on the quantity and quality of refer-ences to climate mitigation, emission reductions, and relevant transportation and land usepolicies, in terms of an expressed or implicit commitment to climate change mitigation.Document ratings were: zero; ‘low’ for minimal reference to (or minimal substance on)mitigation, or no sense of urgency; ‘medium’ for attention to some aspects of, or thesetting of a target for, mitigation, but no urgent time frame; and ‘high’ for serious andcommitted attention to mitigation, with a sense of urgency and ambition and with a strat-egy and targets.

Findings

WellingtonIn line with aspirations for a high-quality of life, Wellington City Council (WCC) and, lessambitiously, GWRC policy-makers, have espoused clear carbon mitigation goals.However, below the high-level aspirations, specific targets and policy measures have

Figure 4. Gross greenhouse gas emissions per capita for Auckland (ARUP 2012).

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 103

been unambitious, and recent documents focused on climate change do not find theirambition reflected in other plans (Chapman et al. 2015).

At a strategic level, GWRC ignored climate change mitigation in its 2012 WellingtonRegional Strategy (GWRC 2012). This Strategy mentioned growth 29 times, sustainableor sustainability only twice, and climate change not at all. This was surprising, as theLocal Government Act 2002 requires consideration of a broad range of interests, includingenvironmental, social, and cultural matters. In the Wellington Regional Land TransportPlan 2015, mitigating transport emissions remains merely a sub-issue under ‘Liveability’.Until recently, moreover, GWRC did not monitor trends in total regional carbon emis-sions. The first regional Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report (URS 2014) underlined that

Table 2. Council documents analysed, and rating of commitment to climate change mitigation.Council Document Date Rating

Auckland Council Low Carbon Auckland: Auckland’s energy resilience and low carbonaction plan

Jul 2014 √√√

Auckland Plan Jun 2012 √√Auckland Council Long Term Plan 2012–2022 Jun 2012 √Auckland Council 10-Year Budget/Long-Term Plan 2015–2025 Jun 2015 √Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010–2040 Apr 2010 √Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan 2015–2025 Jul 2015 √Auckland Regional Land Transport Program 2012–2015 Apr 2012 √Auckland Council Annual Report 2014/2015 (summary) Sep 2015 √

Greater WellingtonRegional Council

Climate Change Strategy: A strategy to guide the Wellington RegionalCouncil’s climate change response

Oct 2015 √√

Greater Wellington Regional Council: 10 Year Plan, 2015–25 Oct 2015 √Greater Wellington Regional Council: Long Term Plan 2012–22 Jun 2012 √Wellington Regional Strategy 2012: Growing a sustainable economy n.d. 2012 0Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010–2040 Sep 2010 √Regional Land Transport Program 2012–2015 Jul 2012 √Wellington Regional Land Transport Plan 2015 (draft) n.d. 2015 √√Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region Apr 2013 √GWRC Annual Report 2014/15 Oct 2015 √

Wellington City Council Wellington City’s 2013 Climate Change Action Plan Oct 2013 √√√Wellington Towards 2040: Smart capital Aug 2012 √√Wellington City Council Long Term Plan 2015–25 Jun 2015 √√√Wellington City Council Long Term Plan 2012–22 Jun 2012 √Wellington City Council Annual Report 2013–2014 Sep 2014 √

Upper Hutt City Council Upper Hutt City Sustainability Strategy 2015–2025 n.d. 2015 √Upper Hutt City Council Long Term Plan 2015–2025 Jun 2015 √Upper Hutt City Long Term Plan 2012–2022 n.d. 2012 0Upper Hutt City Annual Report 2013–2014 Oct. 2014 √

Hutt City Council Hutt City Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2015–2045 Dec 2014 √√Hutt City: Shaping Our City. Long Term Plan for Hutt City 2015–2025 n.d. 2015 0Hutt City Long Term Plan 2012–2022 n.d. 2012 0Hutt City Annual Report to 30 June 2014 n.d. 2014 0

Porirua City Council Porirua City Council Long Term Plan 2015–2025 Jun 2015 √Porirua City Council Long Term Plan 2012–2022 Jun 2012 √Porirua City Council Annual Report 2013–2014 Sep 2014 0

Kapiti Coast Dist. Council Kapiti Coast District Council Long Term Plan 2015–2035 Jun 2015 √√Kapiti Coast District Council Long Term Plan 2012–2032 n.d. 2012 √√Kapiti Coast District Council Annual Report 2013–2014 n.d. 2014 √

Notes: Documents ordered by level, from strategic to annual reports. Basis of document rating: 0: Zero: Document does notrefer to climate change mitigation/emissions reduction; √: Low: Minimal reference or substance, no sense of urgency;√√: Medium: Attention to some aspects/target set, but not urgent time frame; √√√: High: Serious and committedattention, sense of urgency and ambition, with strategy and targets.

104 R. CHAPMAN ET AL.

GWRC has been slow to recognise the issue of carbon mitigation, despite noting in a 2005State of the Environment report that carbon emissions were a ‘must improve’ matter(GWRC 2005). However, attention to mitigation is improving. GWRC’s climate changestrategy of late 2015 stated a vision that ‘GWRC strengthens the long-term resilienceand sustainability of the Wellington region through climate change action and awareness’(GWRC 2015b). The Regional Council now has a dual target for carbon emissions, namely,that by 2025, the region’s transport-related per capita carbon emissions will be 15 per centbelow 2013 levels and absolute emissions will be 10 per cent down (GWRC 2015a). Thistarget is arguably more ambitious than central government’s,4 but still falls markedly shortof the action needed to achieve developed world carbon reduction goals of around 80–95 per cent by 2050 (UNFCCC 2007), or the 1.5–2°C goal of the Paris Agreement(Climate Action Tracker 2015b). By the end of 2015, other than these transport targets,there were no specific measurable targets to accompany the GWRC’s climate strategy.

A positive contribution to effective mitigation has been made by GWRC throughinvestment in bus and train upgrades and promotion of public transport alongsidealternatives such as walking and cycling.5 However, there are risks that current opportu-nities such as regional bus fleet upgrades will not be seized (Sobiecki & Chapman 2016)and GWRC’s strategic approach to public and active transport can be seen as at best gra-dualist and at worst ‘deficient’ (Generation Zero 2013). For example, in the 10 Year Plan,there is a stated target that travel program participants will increase their use of sustainabletransport modes, but no targets are set (GWRC 2015c, p.105). More generally, the com-bined effect of GWRC’s policies is not explicitly evaluated in CO2 terms,6 and funding forcarbon reduction policies is not yet explicitly allocated.

WCC has an ambitious goal of reducing emissions to 30 per cent below 2001 levels by2020, a commitment it renewed in 2013 (Wellington City Council 2010, 2013), but willnow not achieve: the actual reduction in city-wide emissions by 2013 was 0.7 per cent(URS 2014, p. 33). WCC has focused mainly on a limited set of policy levers, includingfinancing of housing energy efficiency retrofits, encouraging cycling, minimising waste,capturing methane from landfills, and improving efficiency in its own operations. Atend-2015, its plans were being reconsidered (Wellington City Council 2016).

A concerning feature of WCC’s thinking is that its transport and land use policiesappear only weakly connected to its mitigation goals. In its 2014 annual transportreport, for example, there was no mention of climate change or mitigation, and lowcarbon emissions were only briefly mentioned (Wellington City Council 2014a). Analysisof WCC spending priorities also demonstrates that there is still a significant emphasis onroad transport, with the majority of both operating and capital expenditure being allocatedto the vehicle network, with the cycling and pedestrian networks combined representingonly about one-fifth of the total7 (Wellington City Council 2014a). This matters, as trans-port is the city’s second largest source of carbon emissions (35 per cent excluding aviation)(Wellington City Council 2013).

Analysis of some recent important land use planning decisions by WCC suggests that‘road-related’ interests, supported by the national New Zealand Transport Agency, tend totrump city-level ‘sustainable redevelopment’ interests (Topham 2012). This is despite evi-dence of a public appetite inWellington city for a quality, compact city vision, and increas-ing interest in mixed-use urban development (Howden-Chapman et al. 2015). Wellingtonhas seen more rapid growth in CBD and medium-density housing areas than expected by

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 105

the City Council. Further growth is expected, with 35 per cent of new housing expected tobe medium-density and by 2043, the number of dwellings in the CBD growing by 88 percent (Wellington City Council 2014b). Even 35 per cent medium-density may be conser-vative (Dodge 2017).

The ongoing realisation of such changes, inWellington city and elsewhere in the region,partly turns on political feasibility. Our evaluation of the local authority documents in theregion suggests that there are varying interpretations of local communities’ willingness toalter the shape of their cities, and cut transportation emissions. Some documents reportcitizens’ desires for more environmentally sustainable communities (e.g. Hutt CityCouncil n.d., p. 5), but council policies may not reflect this (Hutt City Council 2015).WCC and Kapiti Coast appear to have constituencies favouring ambitious mitigationgoals, but other cities and district councils in the region are less committed to mitigation(Table 2) to judge by the content of key policy documents. Several councils have yet to setmitigation goals. Porirua City’s only substantive reference in its Long-Term Plan 2015–2025 to transport and climate change is that ‘the added cost to energy prices (transportfuels and stationary energy) is minimal and unlikely to increase’.

In short, in analysing mitigation ambitions, priorities, and concrete plans for the Well-ington region, we conclude first that Wellington councils’ ambitions vary greatly, from theWCC’s clear ambition through to the smaller councils’ focus on adaptation rather thanmitigation. Second, there is a major gap between the ambition of strategic visions, andthe reality of lower level plans and delivery of emission reductions through concrete pol-icies adopted. This is despite scope for city/district councils to choose policies that make adifference in public and active transport, and land use planning.

AucklandWith Auckland’s amalgamation into one integrated ‘super-city’ council in 2010 and a newfocus on strategic planning for the region, Auckland Council adopted a vision to be ‘theworld’s “most livable city”: a quality, compact city’ (Auckland Council 2012). Aucklandpolicy-makers are aiming for substantial, if not ambitious, emissions reduction and associ-ated improvements in regional urban and transport planning.

The 2012 Auckland Plan set out Auckland Council’s mitigation strategy, an emissionsreduction of 10–20 per cent by 2020, 40 per cent by 2040 and 50 per cent by 2050 (alltargets relative to 1990 levels). These targets were all aligned with central governmenttargets, but as the central government has now watered down its 10–20 per cent targetfor 2020 to 5 per cent, Auckland’s short-term target now appears comparatively ambitious.At the strategic level, Auckland Council appears serious, and joined the C40 Cities ClimateLeadership Group at Paris in December 2015. However, some official Auckland targets arelooser than they seem. The Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy targets are percapita targets – for example, to reduce GHG emissions per capita from transport by50 per cent by 2040 relative to 2007 levels (Auckland Regional Council 2010). Thesetargets will be substantially offset by projected population growth, as noted by theclimate NGO ‘Generation Zero’ (2012). As the atmosphere ‘sees’ only absolute reductions,per capita reductions have limited environmental meaning. The recent Low Carbon Auck-land Plan details substantive policies planned to reduce future emissions (AucklandCouncil 2014), but at the practical level, Auckland Council’s most recent scorecard on

106 R. CHAPMAN ET AL.

emissions performance has shown progress on only two out of four transport emissionindicators (Auckland Council 2015, p. 5).

In the last few years, Auckland Transport’s focus on public transport enhancements hasled to several actions supporting long-term emission reductions, including progressivelyelectrifying the urban train network, integrating ticketing systems and supporting traveldemand reduction programs to encourage mode shift (Auckland Transport 2014). Emis-sion reductions gained by these improvements are estimated, althoughwe found no publiclydocumented link to the Council’s overall transport targets. In the short term, significanttransportation policy measures include expansion of the bus lane network, completion ofthe City Rail Link, improving travel information, and consolidation of freight networks.

Strategically, the most significant of these measures is the City Rail Link, first proposedin the 1920s to join up the city’s currently disjointed urban rail network with the aim ofdoubling capacity, and halving some public transport journey times into the CBD. Plans tobegin building the link were delayed due to lack of central government funding support(Orsman 2014), but Auckland Council pushed ahead in 2015. In 2016, central governmentchanged its position and now supports this critical project (Wade 2016). Despite this pro-ject’s significance, the Low Carbon Auckland plan (Auckland Council 2014) does notquantify its likely carbon yield.

Despite various differences betweenWellington region and Auckland, document analy-sis reveals similarities in the cities’ approaches to mitigation. Firstly, mitigation and its co-benefits are being given increasing prominence by both Auckland and the bigger councilsin the Wellington region, if barely mentioned by a number of small councils (Table 2).Second, mitigation is often linked with climate impacts, a connection widely found inother countries (Gore 2010; Qi et al. 2008), revealing that the (expected) local impactsof climate change can raise citizen engagement, and that linking mitigation to localissues can motivate policy action (Puppim de Oliveira 2009; Schreurs 2008).

However, while climate change is discussed in council documents, mitigation still takessecond place to ‘efficiency’ and ‘economic growth’. In transport-related documents, miti-gation targets are included, but not ‘front and centre’, evidently because councils remainpreoccupied with shorter term costs and growth. As mitigation and economic success arenot mutually exclusive (Gustavsson et al. 2009), the two cities in this study could send amessage to the government by highlighting complementarities between mitigation andprosperity (Schreurs 2008).

In the councils’ long-term plans, climate change most often appears under ‘infrastruc-ture’ – ensuring that infrastructure is able to handle climate change effects such as risingseas and flood/storm intensity. Importantly, a clear link between mitigation goals and con-crete long-term plan actions is generally lacking from the cities’ policy documents. If Well-ington and Auckland are to take a greater leadership role, a greater focus on the extent towhich policies can materially contribute to stated targets, and the factors impeding or sup-porting progress, is necessary.

Constraining local ambition: central government and the citiesIn evaluating targets and progress, we have reviewed Wellington and Auckland cities’policy stances and performance against a multi-level governance framing, looking foralignment or conflicts between central and local governments. Central government has,since the change of administration at the end of 2008, largely abandoned meaningful

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 107

carbon mitigation policies, focusing instead on economic growth (DPMC 2014). Its hol-lowing out of the Emissions Trading Scheme has been widely criticised (Hopkins et al.2015). The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment described this as makingclimate change policy ‘a farce’ (Wright 2012). Even before this, mitigation policy was wea-kened in 2004 by a Resource Management Act amendment removing councils’ ability toconsider adverse climatic effects when consenting land use activities (Baillie 2012; Harkeret al. 2016). Given the subsequent extended weakness of national-level policy, this changewas significant.

In terms of transportation, environmental sustainability was removed from the Trans-port Strategy following the 2008 change of incoming government (Ministry of Transport2009), with an explicit reorientation away from transport sector mitigation, given theincoming government’s preference to rely on the emissions trading scheme:

[M]oving too quickly on modal shift will have a negative impact on environmental [sic] andeconomic efficiency’ and… ‘government expects carbon mitigation primarily to occur vianew fuels (e.g. biofuels and electric cars) encouraged via an emission trading scheme, plussome modal shift actions. (Ministry of Transport 2009, p. 11)

After extended quiescence and loss of opportunities for ‘transformative’ action (Knight-Lenihan 2015), even the government’s own advisers recommended action by 2014. TheEnvironment ministry noted tersely that ‘The current settings and weak price signalneither incentivise behaviour change nor prepare us for a transition to rising futurecarbon prices’ (MfE 2014a, p. 23), and that ‘current settings are not driving meaningfulemission reductions’ (MfE 2014a, p. 5), while the Transport ministry stated:

Measures to reduce transport emissions have had a limited impact, and more will need to bedone if we are to make a meaningful contribution towards the government’s wider targetsand international obligations on climate change. (Ministry of Transport 2014, p. 14)

Missed mitigation opportunities have been apparent in recent government urban develop-ment policy. A key plank of this is to increase housing supply in greenfield areas and otherareas of demand, for example by creating ‘special housing areas’ (SHAs) for rapid housingdevelopment (Murphy 2015). This involved Auckland Council adopting a 2013 AucklandHousing Accord, entailing streamlined planning of SHAs within the framework of Auck-land’s proposed Unitary Plan. However, the SHAs policy did not prioritise compact devel-opment, so that travel associated with SHA development is unlikely to be less carbon-intensive than normal Auckland travel, according to a modelling analysis, at a timewhen emission reduction from smarter land use is needed (Preval et al. 2016).

Against this backdrop, can we expect meaningful mitigation actions from AucklandandWellington councils? A pessimistic response might be that the land use, transport pat-terns, and energy use of city regions is largely locked in after decades of development, andthat accordingly, it is a painfully slow process to reduce (urban) carbon emissions. Thisview emphasises ‘path dependence’ (Arthur 1988), and the economic and social difficultyof changing fuel using behaviour (Smil 2008). Once urban infrastructure is built, andsocial behaviour developed around it, the socio-technical pattern is embedded. Such aview might be supported by readings of some of Auckland’s motor vehicle commutingand emission numbers: for example, Auckland’s increased public transport travel to theCBD over 2006–2013 was offset by increases in private transport travel in outer areaswhere public transport shares are low (Paling 2014, p. 14).

108 R. CHAPMAN ET AL.

Amore optimistic view is that transport and land use policies of councils can succeed inaltering emission paths over time, if the ambition is there, and policies are not impeded ata higher level (Aylett 2014; Chapman et al. 2014; Hickman et al. 2014; Keall et al. 2015).Effective actions are easier in a rapidly growing city, suggesting that Auckland’s potentialfor change is high.

Nevertheless, major investments in compact development and connected infrastructureare needed (Floater et al. 2014a). Both Auckland and Wellington’s steady land use inten-sification, concentrated around amenities, indicates that investment is occurring. Thisintensification could be accelerated in both Wellington and Auckland, with an importantlong-term effect on emissions. Swift growth in multi-unit housing is already favoured byboth Auckland and Wellington City councils (Early et al. 2015), although the outcome ofthe Independent Hearings Panel process on the Auckland Unitary Plan, which reported inAugust 2016, will influence the pace in Auckland. An emphasis on the rapid developmentof the more centrally located SHAs in both cities, with appropriate transport facilities,would help increase public transport and active travel mode shares.

Road pricing policies could also be introduced for congested road arterials – but theseare not yet legal in New Zealand, to the frustration of some councils (GWRC 2016, p. 130).However, there are hints of a change in central government policy on this. Similarly, accel-erating the removal of minimum parking requirements; increasing car parking prices; andincreasing the frequency of bus services on the basis of community service supporting anageing population, would all help shift mode choices away from private motor vehicles.

In short, policies being planned or considered for Auckland andWellington do have thepotential, if accelerated, to make significant changes in urban form and transportation pat-terns, and significantly cut transport emissions over a timeframe of 20–30 years. Theywould, in particular, be consistent with the goal of the Low Carbon Auckland plan, to‘ensure the Auckland Unitary plan enables intensification in areas with access to goodpublic transport, encourages walkable and cycleable communities and zoning patternssupport efficient transport networks and reduced reliance on car travel’ (AucklandCouncil 2014). They would also be consistent with the goals of Wellington City Council’sdraft Low Carbon Capital Plan of 2016, to support mitigation through intensification,among other means.

Conclusion

This article was motivated by an appreciation of the need to cut carbon emissions sharplyif unmanageable climate change is to be minimised, and by the reality that many citiesinternationally have begun to take effective mitigation actions irrespective of the stanceof central governments. Cities such as Portland and Copenhagen have shown the potentialof creative policy experimentation (Floater et al. 2014b; Slavin 2011). Our policy analysisconcludes that Auckland Council and some of the councils in the Wellington regionclearly state the case for ambitious mitigation action and are starting to take some effectivesteps to reduce emissions. Progress on the ground is, however, slow. While WellingtonCity mitigation goals, in particular, represent a significant level of ambition, they havebeen undermined by slow progress in policy implementation, and hindered until recentlyby GWRC’s low profile on climate change. However, some policy actions, such as improv-ing public transport in both Auckland and Wellington regions, are bearing fruit.

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 109

The critical level of government for influencing carbon emissions in the Wellingtonregion, GWRC, has only just begun to take mitigation seriously, as indicated by arecent statement by its chair, on the release of a new climate change strategy: ‘We haverealised that, in the absence of meaningful commitment from the Government, it is upto councils to take the lead in reducing emissions… ’ (GWRC 2015d). GWRC’s most posi-tive actions to date have been around improving public transport after decades of under-investment, and per capita transportation emissions are falling. It is difficult for city coun-cils in the Wellington region to make substantial emissions cuts given their limited policylevers. Nevertheless, Wellington and Kapiti Coast are developing ambitious approaches.These two councils, not to mention other councils in the Wellington region, will needto significantly lift their record on policy implementation (Wellington’s cycleways are acase in point). There remain serious gaps across the region in policy on active andpublic transport infrastructure investment and promotion, and land use planning toimplement compact city development aims.

Auckland Council has adopted a progressive vision for its region, and comparativelyambitious shorter term carbon emission reduction targets, but its out-year targets arenot strong, and need to be strengthened to align with the 2015 Paris agreement.However, its plans are, so far, more concrete than those of Greater Wellington and, if suc-cessfully implemented, could generate significant reductions. If Auckland and GWRCcoordinated in stepping beyond central government constraints, actively raised publicawareness, and analysed and monitored more clearly the effects of their policies, theirpositive actions could beneficially influence other cities’ approaches.

A further conclusion is that councils seem increasingly aware that land use policies (e.g.rules governing intensification; minimum parking requirements) matter greatly forencouraging more sustainable transport and environmental outcomes. AucklandCouncil is leading on minimum parking requirements (Auckland Council 2015, p. 4),and Wellington City is also considering reform (both cities have already removed suchrequirements in the CBD). Policy changes in these domains could significantly altertravel behaviour over time, yielding valuable mitigation.

City goals and developing actions contrast with mitigation inaction by central govern-ment. Tension between levels of government has been evident in areas such as the delay incentral government assistance for the Auckland central rail link. More positively, suchtension represents democratic resistance to central government inertia, a resistance under-pinned by widespread concern about climate change’s incipient effects. It appears thatcentral government inertia hinders but does not stymie local council action: councilsare acting to reduce emissions, and building a constituency for doing so.

Coordination between levels of government on transportation has elsewhere been seento be desirable for successful mitigation action at the city level (e.g. Gore 2010; Jones 2013).Councils in New Zealand have had to respond to central government’s orientation toeconomic growth and conventional vehicle transport, but are also recognising an emergingconstituency for mitigation. Following COP21 in Paris, there are also early indications thatthe central government is starting to better appreciate the case for active mitigation. Thetwo cities on which this study has focused are likely to miss their mitigation targets unlessa more multi-level coordinated and progressive approach to carbon mitigation isimplemented. Coordination, a more progressive central government policy approach,and more effective city-level policy actions, could together enable urban mitigation

110 R. CHAPMAN ET AL.

potential to be realised. The importance of this is underlined by the renewed global ambi-tion spelt out in the Paris agreement.

Notes

1. Targets expressed vis-à-vis 1990 (Groser 2013).2. This analysis excludes agricultural emissions. Including them would misleadingly portray

Wellington’s emissions as much higher than Auckland’s, simply because Wellington has alarger region.

3. This category includes motorcyclists, which are also included in Table 1 figures.4. GWRC’s reduction rate (2013–2025) is 0.9 per cent/year; central government’s target implies

a gross reduction rate of 0.3 per cent/year (1990–2030), but the net reduction rate is unclearas land use change and forestry data are not publicly available. Starting points and respon-sibilities are, of course, contested.

5. See, for example, the Active a2b programme.6. GWRC does have an internal emissions mitigation plan (‘Climate Change Mitigation Cor-

porate Action Plan’).7. Public transport network expenditure is primarily the responsibility of the Regional Council.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This paper was prepared as part of the ‘Resilient Urban Futures’ research program of the NewZealand Centre for Sustainable Cities, funded by the New Zealand Ministry for Business, Inno-vation and Employment.

References

Aitken, C, Chapman, R & McClure, J 2011, ‘Climate change, powerlessness and the commonsdilemma’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 752–760.

Arthur, WB 1988, Urban systems and historical path-dependence, The Stanford Institute forPopulation and Resource Studies, Palo Alto.

ARUP 2012, Auckland Council: potential policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: technicalreport, ARUP Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia.

Auckland Council 2012, The Auckland plan, Auckland Council, Auckland.Auckland Council 2014, Low carbon Auckland: Auckland’s energy resilience and low carbon action

plan (Toitū te whenua, toitū te tangata), Auckland Council, Auckland.Auckland Council 2015, Low carbon Auckland: a year in action, Auckland Council, Auckland.Auckland Regional Council 2010, Auckland regional land transport strategy 2010–2040, Auckland

Regional Council, Auckland.Auckland Transport 2014, Auckland Transport: annual report 2014, Auckland Transport,

Auckland.Auckland Transport 2015, Auckland Transport monthly indicators report 2015/16: November 2015,

Auckland Transport, Auckland.Aylett, A 2014, ‘Progress and challenges in the urban governance of climate change: results of a

global survey’, MIT – Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Cambridge, MA.Bailey, R, Longhurst, JWS, Hayes, ET, Hudson, L, Ragnarsdottir, KV & Thumim, J 2012, ‘Exploring

a city’s potential low carbon futures using Delphi methods: some preliminary findings’, Journalof Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1022–1046.

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 111

Baillie, S 2012, The consideration and regulation of climate change effects under the ResourceManagement Act 1991, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Betsill, MM & Bulkeley, H 2006, ‘Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change’,Global Governance, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 141–159.

Birchall, SJ 2014, ‘Carbon management in New Zealand local government: co-benefits of action andorganisational resolve in the absence of government support’, Australasian Journal ofEnvironmental Management, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 253–267.

Boven, R, Harland, C & Grace, L 2012, Navigating an uncertain future: Environmental foundationsfor long-term success, Stakeholder Strategies, Auckland.

Bowen, GA 2009, ‘Document analysis as a qualitative research method’, Qualitative ResearchJournal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 27–40.

Brown, MA, Southworth, F & Sarzynski, A 2008, Shrinking the carbon footprint of metropolitanAmerica, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

Bulkeley, H 2010, ‘Cities and the governing of climate change’, Annual Review of Environment andResources, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 229–253.

Bulkeley, H & Betsill, MM 2005, ‘Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance and the“Urban” politics of climate change’, Environmental Politics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 42–63.

Bulkeley, H & Kern, K 2006, ‘Local government and the governing of climate change in Germanyand the UK’, Urban Studies, vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 2237–2259.

C40 Cities 2014, Climate action in megacities: C40 cities baseline and opportunities volume 2.0, C40Cities Climate Leadership Group and Arup, New York.

Chapman, R 2008, ‘Transitioning to low-carbon urban form and transport in New Zealand’,Political Science, vol. 60, no. June, pp. 89–98.

Chapman, R 2015, Time of useful consciousness: acting urgently on climate change, Bridget WilliamsBooks, Wellington.

Chapman, R, Howden-Chapman, P & Capon, A 2016, ‘Understanding the systemic nature of citiesto improve health and climate change mitigation’, Environment International, vol. 94,September, pp. 380–387.

Chapman, R, Howden-Chapman, P, Keall, M, Witten, K, Abrahamse, W, Woodward, A,Muggeridge, D, Beetham, J & Grams, M 2014, ‘Increasing active travel: aims, methods and base-line measures of a quasi-experimental study’, BMC Public Health, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 935–947.

Chapman, R, Thomas, A, Bond, S, Goldberg, E & Livesey, C 2013, ‘Environmental governance: areport on New Zealand environmental governance for the transparency international NewZealand (TINZ) project (supplementary paper)’, Transparency International New Zealand,Wellington.

Chapman, R, Whitwell, K & Dodge, N 2015, ‘Submission to the Greater Wellington RegionalCouncil on the draft regional land transport plan’, NZ Centre for Sustainable Cities, Wellington.

Climate Action Tracker 2015a, New Zealand deploys creative accounting to allow emissions to rise,Climate Analytics, PIK, Ecofys and New Climate Institute, Berlin.

Climate Action Tracker 2015b, Paris agreement: near-term actions do not match long term purpose –but stage is set to ramp up climate action, Climate Analytics, Ecofys, PIK and NewClimateInstitute, Berlin.

Committee on Climate Change 2012, How local authorities can reduce emissions and manageclimate risk, Committee on Climate Change, London.

Corfee-Morlot, J, Kamal-Chaoui, L, Donovan, M, Cochran, I, Robert, A & Teasdale, P 2009, Cities,climate change and multilevel governance, OECD Environmental Working Papers, OECD, Paris.

Dodge, N 2017, A quarter acre pavlova paradise lost? The role of preferences and planning in achiev-ing urban sustainability in Wellington, New Zealand (PhD thesis), Victoria University ofWellington, Wellington.

DPMC 2014, Statement of intent 2014-2018, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet,Wellington.

Eaqub, S 2014, Growing apart: regional prosperity in New Zealand, Bridget Williams Books,Wellington.

112 R. CHAPMAN ET AL.

Early, L, Howden-Chapman, P & Russell, M 2015,Drivers of urban change, Steele Roberts Aotearoa,Wellington.

Engel, K 2009, ‘Whither subnational climate change initiatives in the wake of federal climate legis-lation’, Publius: Journal of Federalism, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 432–454.

Floater, G, Rode, P, Robert, A, Kennedy, C, Hoornweg, D, Slavcheva, R & Godfrey, N 2014a, Citiesand the new climate economy: the transformative role of global urban growth, LSE Cities, LondonSchool of Economics and Political Science, London.

Floater, G, Rode, P & Zenghelis, D 2014b, Copenhagen: green economy leader report, LSE Cities,London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library, London.

Foote, K, Joy, M & Death, R 2015, ‘New Zealand dairy farming: milking our environment for all itsworth’, Environmental Management, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 709–720.

Geden, O 2015, Ensuring the quality of scientific climate policy advice, SWP: German Institute forInternational and Security Affairs, Berlin.

Generation Zero 2012, Submission on the draft Auckland regional land transport programme,Generatioin Zero, Auckland.

Generation Zero 2013, Fast forward Wellington, Generation Zero, Wellington.Gore, CD 2010, ‘The limits and opportunities of networks: municipalities and Canadian climate

change policy’, Review of Policy Research, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 27–46.Groser, T 2013, New Zealand commits to 2020 climate change target, viewed <http://www.beehive.

govt.nz/release/new-zealand-commits-2020-climate-change-target>.Gurran, N & Phibbs, P 2013, ‘Housing supply and urban planning reform: the recent Australian

experience’, International Journal of Housing Policy, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 381–407.Gustavsson, E, Elander, I & Lundmark, M 2009, ‘Multilevel governance, networking cities, and the

geography of climate-change mitigation: two Swedish examples’, Environment and Planning C:Government and Policy, vol. 27, pp. 59–74.

GWRC 2005, Measuring up – the state of the environment report for the Wellington region 2005,Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wellington.

GWRC 2012, Wellington regional strategy 2012 – growing a sustainable economy, GreaterWellington Regional Council, Wellington.

GWRC 2014, 2013/14 Annual monitoring report on the regional land transport strategy, GreaterWellington Regional Council, Wellington.

GWRC 2015a, 2014/15 Annual monitoring report on the regional land transport plan November2015, Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wellington.

GWRC 2015b, Climate change strategy; A strategy to guide the Wellington regional council’s climatechange response, October 2015, Greater Wellington Regional Strategy, Wellington.

GWRC 2015c, Greater Wellington regional council 10 year plan, 2015-25, Greater WellingtonRegional Council, Wellington.

GWRC 2015d, Regional council takes action on climate change (media release), Greater WellingtonRegional Council, Wellington.

GWRC 2016, Wellington regional land transport plan 2015, Greater Wellington Regional Council,Wellington.

Harker, J, Taylor, P & Knight-Lenihan, S 2016, ‘Multi-level governance and climate change mitiga-tion in New Zealand: lost opportunities’, Climate Policy, pp. 1–16.

Harris, C 2005, ‘Slow train coming: the New Zealand state changes its mind about Auckland transit,1949-56’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 37–55.

Hickman, R, Austin, P & Banister, D 2014, ‘Hyperautomobility and governmentality in Auckland’,Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 419–435.

Hopkins, D, Campbell-Hunt, C, Carter, L, Higham, JES & Rosin, C 2015, ‘Climate change andAotearoa New Zealand’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 6, no. 6, pp.559–583.

Howden-Chapman, P, Hamer-Adams, A, Randal, E, Chapman, R & Salmon, G 2015, ‘A survey ofsentiments about cities’, in L Early, P Howden-Chapman & M Russell (eds.), Drivers of urbanchange, Steele Roberts Aotearoa, Wellington, pp. 209–227.

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 113

Hughey, K, Kerr, G & Cullen, R 2013, Public perceptions of New Zealand’s environment: 2013, EOSEcology, Christchurch.

Hutt City Council 2015, Shaping our city. Long term plan for Hutt City 2015-2025, Hutt CityCouncil, Lower Hutt.

Hutt City Council n.d.,Hutt City council environmental sustainability strategy 2009-2014, Hutt CityCouncil, Lower Hutt.

Infometrics 2015a, Auckland annual economic profile 2015, Infometrics, Wellington.Infometrics 2015b, Wellington region annual economic profile 2015, New Zealand Institute of

Economic Research, Wellington.Jacobs, K 2006, ‘Discourse analysis and its utility for urban policy research’, Urban Policy and

Research, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 39–52.Jones, S 2013, ‘Climate change policies of city governments in federal systems: an analysis of

Vancouver, Melbourne and New York’, Regional Studies, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 974–992.Keall, M, Chapman, R, Howden-Chapman, P, Witten, K, Abrahamse, W & Woodward, A 2015,

‘Increasing active travel: results of a quasi-experimental study of an intervention to encouragewalking and cycling’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 69, no. 12, pp.1184–1190.

Kern, K & Alber, G 2008, Governing climate change in cities: modes of urban climate governance inmulti-level systems (Chapter 8), Competitive Cities and Climate Change, OECD ConferenceProceedings, OECD, Paris, pp. 171–192.

Knight-Lenihan, S 2015, ‘Benefit cost analysis, resilience and climate change’, Climate Policy, vol.16, no. 7, pp. 909–923.

Kousky, C & Schneider, SH 2003, ‘Global climate policy: will cities lead the way?’, Climate Policy,vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 359–372.

Leining, C &White, S 2015, From fact to act: New Zealanders’ beliefs and actions on climate change,Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, Wellington, New Zealand.

Macey, A 2014, ‘Climate change: towards policy coherence’, Policy Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 49–56.

McKim, L 2014, ‘The economic geography of active commuting: regional insights fromWellington,New Zealand’, Regional Studies, Regional Science, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 88–95.

Mees, P & Dodson, J 2006, Backtracking Auckland: Bureaucratic rationality and public preferencesin transport planning, Griffith University Urban Research Program, Griffith University,Brisbane.

MfE 2014a, Environmental Stewarship for a prosperous New Zealand: briefing to the incoming min-isters, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.

MfE 2014b, New Zealand’s greenhouse gas inventory 1990-2012, Ministry for the Environment,Wellington.

MfE 2015, New Zealand’s post-2020 climate change target, Ministry for the Environment,Wellington.

MfE 2016, New Zealand’s greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2014, Ministry for the Environment,Wellington.

Milfont, TL 2012, ‘The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about globalwarming and climate change: a one – year longitudinal study’, Risk Analysis, vol. 32, no. 6, pp.1003–1020.

Milfont, T, Evans, L, Sibley, C, Ries, J & Cunningham, A 2014, ‘Proximity to coast is linked toclimate change belief’, PloS ONE, vol. 9, no. 7, p. e103180.

Ministry of Transport 2009, Government policy statement on land transport funding 2009/10–2018/19, Ministry of Transport, Wellington.

Ministry of Transport 2014, Briefing to the incoming minister: ensuring our transport system helpsNew Zealand thrive, Ministry of Transport, Wellington.

Murphy, L 2015, ‘The politics of land supply and affordable housing: Auckland’s housing accordand special housing areas’, Urban Studies, doi:10.1177/0042098015594574.

Newman, P, Beatley, T & Boyer, H 2009, Resilient cities: responding to peak oil and climate change,Island Press, Washington, DC.

114 R. CHAPMAN ET AL.

Nunns, P 2014, Population-weighted densities in New Zealand and Australian cities: a new com-parative dataset, MRCagney Working Paper, Auckland.

OECD 2007, OECD environmental performance reviews: New Zealand, Orgainization for EconomicCooperation and Development, Paris.

OECD 2015, OECD economic surveys: New Zealand, OECD, Paris.Oram, R 2014, ETS is a scam, greens’ carbon tax would fix it – Rod Oram’s column for June 8th, 2014,

Facebook, Wellington.Orsman, B 2014, City rail link: main works delayed until 2018, review of, NZ Herald, 9th December.Ostrom, E 2009, A polycentric approach for coping with climate change, World Bank, Washington,

DC.Paling, R 2014, Journey to work patterns in the Auckland region: analysis of census data for 2001-

2013, Executive summary, Richard Paling Consulting, Auckland.Preval, N, Randal, E, Chapman, R, Moores, J & Howden-Chapman, P 2016, ‘Special housing areas

and sustainability: evaluating impacts of a policy designed to address housing shortages andaffordability in a New Zealand City’, Cities, vol. 55, pp. 101–112.

Prince, R 2015, ‘Is Neoliberalism still a useful term?’ eSocSci blog, viewed <http://www.esocsci.org.nz/is-neoliberalism-still-a-useful-term/>

Puppim de Oliveira, J 2009, ‘The implementation of climate change related policies at the subna-tional level: an analysis of three countries’, Habitat International, vol. 33, pp. 253–259.

Pure Advantage 2012, New Zealand’s position in the green race, Pure Advantage, Auckland.Qi, Y, Ma, L, Zhang, H & Li, H 2008, ‘Translating a global issue into local priority: China’s local

government response to climate change’, The Journal of Environment & Development, vol. 17,no. 4, pp. 379–400.

Sancton, A 2006, ‘Cities and climate change: policy-takers, not policy-makers’, Policy Options, vol.27, no. 8, pp. 32–34.

Schreurs, MA 2008, ‘From the bottom up: local and subnational climate change politics’, TheJournal of Environment & Development, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 343–355.

Shaw, C, Russell, M, van Sparrentak, K, Merrett, A & Clegg, H 2016, Benchmarking cycling andwalking in six New Zealand cities. Pilot study 2015, New Zealand Centre for SustainableCities, University of Otago, Wellington.

Slavin, M 2011, Sustainability in America’s cities: creating the green metropolis, Island Press,Washington, DC.

Smil, V 2008, ‘Long-range energy forecasts are no more than fairy tales’, Nature, vol. 453, no. 7192,p. 154.

Sobiecki, L & Chapman, R 2016, The future of Wellington’s bus fleet: the environmental and healthimplications of different upgrade options for Wellington bus fleet, Victoria University ofWellington and the NZ Centre for Sustainable Cities, Wellington.

Somanathan, E, Sterner, T, Sugiyama, T, Chimanikire, D, Dubash, NK, Essandoh-Yeddu, JK, Fifita,S, Goulder, L, Jaffe, A & Labandeira, X 2014, ‘National and sub-national policies and insti-tutions’, in Thomas Stener (ed.), Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change.Contribution of working group iii to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Statistics New Zealand 2014, NZ household travel survey: regional results (3-year moving average),Statistics New Zealand, Wellington.

Statistics New Zealand 2015a, 2013 census quickstats about transport and communications, StatisticsNew Zealand, Wellington.

Statistics New Zealand 2015b, Occupied dwelling type, for occupied private dwellings: 2001, 2006,and 2013 censuses, Website of Statistics New Zealand, Wellington.

Statistics New Zealand 2016, Subnational population projections: 2013(base)–2043: projected popu-lation of regional council areas, Statistics New Zealand, Wellington.

Stern, N 2015, Why are we waiting?, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.The Economist Intelligence Unit 2013, Australia and New Zealand green city index / results for

Wellington, Siemens AG, Munich, Germany.

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 115

The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate 2014, Better growth, better climate: the newclimate economy report, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

The World Bank 2015, Population density, Website viewed January 2016.Topham, H 2012, More than just a road’: a case study exploring implementation challenges in sus-

tainable city redevelopment, Master of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington.UNFCCC 2007, Synthesis of information relevant to the determination of the mitigation potential

and to the identification of possible ranges of emission reduction objectives of Annex I Parties:FCCC/TP/2007/1, UNFCCC, Bonn.

URS 2014, Greenhouse gas inventory for the Wellington region, URS NZ Ltd., Wellington, NewZealand.

US Council of Economic Advisers 2014, The cost of delaying action to stem climate change, TheWhite House, Washington, DC.

Wade, V 2016, Rail link 100 years in the making, New Zealand Herald, Auckland.Wannan, O 2015, Clean, green NZ falls behind Australia on climate change, Stuff.co.nz, Wellington.Wellington City Council 2010,Wellington city’s 2010 climate change action plan, WCC, Wellington.Wellington City Council 2013,Wellington city’s 2013 climate change action plan, WCC, Wellington.Wellington City Council 2014a, 2013/2014 annual report (transport: waka), Wellington City

Council, Wellington.Wellington City Council 2014b, Wellington urban growth plan: urban development and transport

strategy 2014-2023, Wellington City Council, Wellington, New Zealand.Wellington City Council 2016, Draft low carbon capital plan, Wellington City Council, Wellington.Wilson, N, Chapman, R & Howden-Chapman, P 2011, ‘End-of-term review of the New Zealand

Government’s response to climate change: a public health perspective’, New Zealand MedicalJournal, vol. 124, no. 1345, pp. 90–95.

Wright, J 2012, ‘Submission on the climate change response (emissions trading and other matters)amendment bill [September]’, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington.

Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy 2014, 2014 environmental performance index, YaleCenter for Environmental Law & Policy, New Haven, CT.

Zahran, S, Grover, H, Brody, SD & Vedlitz, A 2008, ‘Risk, stress, and capacity: explaining metro-politan commitment to climate protection’, Urban Affairs Review, vol. 43, pp. 447–474.

116 R. CHAPMAN ET AL.